Hedging Language in Legal Evidence of Criminal Intent: A Pragmatic Analysis
(Bahasa Lindung Nilai dalam Bukti Perundangan Niat Jenayah: Satu Analisis Pragmatik)
Abstract
Legal Evidence of Criminal Intent is a detailed investigation of the evidence of malicious intent of an accused person. In court proceedings, the judge, prosecution and lawyers will use hedging language or cautious language to obtain evidence from the accused or witnesses who that can aid in determining the intent of the accused. This paper discusses the use of hedging language in courts for obtaining evidence from the accused and witnesses for the purpose of determining the intentions of the accused in the court trial. This case study used Grice's (1975) Principles of Cooperation to analyse cross-examination data between the prosecution, prosecution witnesses and lawyers. The results of the study found that the use of hedging language or cautious language in court proceedings was when the legal and prosecution teams and witnesses responded to questions by the judge. Both parties use hedging language to respond politely. The study also found that the use of hedging language has a contribution in providing the meaning of evidence that demonstrate compliance in terms of maxim of quantity, maxim of quality, maxim of relation and maxim of manner, and can thus be classified as a proposition in legal submissions. These findings also highlight the polite responses of the prosecutors, lawyers and prosecution witnesses to the judge.
Keywords: Criminal Intent legislation, hedging language, court process, Grice's Principles of Cooperation (1975)
References
Cheng, L. (2010). Discourse and judicial thinking: A corpus-based study of court judgments in Hongkong, Taiwan and Mainland China. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 17(2), 295-298.
Cheng, L., & Sin, K. K. (2011). A sociosemiotic interpretation of linguistic modality in legal settings. Semiotica, 185, 123-146.
Dubar, T. (2012). Gender-related features in the use of the hedge You Know: A case study of conversations on the radio station, London's Biggest Conversation 97.3 FM. Retrieved from https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/29527/1/ gupea_2077_29527_1.pdf
Froese, T & Leavens, David A. (2014). The direct perception hypothesis: perceiving the intention of another's action hinders its precise imitation. Frontier in Psychology, 5 (6) 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00065
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), III (pp. 41-58). Academic Press.
Holmes, J. (1995). Women, men and politeness. Longman Group Limited.
Hyland, K. (2005). Hedges, boosters, and lexical invisibility: Noticing modifiers in academic texts. Language Awareness, 9(4), 179-197
Khalifa, R. A. (2015). The phraseology of legal discourse: The judgments of the court of cassation. Synergies Espagne, 8, 49-64.
Lakoff, G. (1972). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Chicago Linguistic Society Papers, 8, 183-228.
Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and Woman's Place. Language in Society, 2(1), 45-80.
Lakoff, R. (December 1975). Linguistic Theory And The Real World. Language Learning, 25(2), 1975, 309-338
Le Cheng & Jiamin Pei . (2018). A Pragmatic Turn in the Interpretation of Court Judgments. Keynote Address II, Conference: The Fifteenth International Conference on Law and Language of the International Academy of Linguistic Law (IALL2017): Law, Language and Justice. Hangzhou & Montréal. January 2018
Low, G. (1996). Intensifiers and hedges in questionnaire items and the lexical invisibility hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 17, 1-3.
Lyons, J. (1977). "Semantics", Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Masiulionytė, V. (2014). Expression of evaluation in German and Lithuanian court judgments. KALBOTYRA, 66, 46-76.
Meyer, P.G. (1994). Hedging strategies in written academic discourse: Strengthening the argument by weakening the claim. In R. Markkanen, & H. Schröder (Eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts (pp. 21-41). Walter de Gruyter.
Palmer, F.R. (2001). Mood and modality. Cambridge university Press.
Recanati, F. (2004). Literal meaning. Cambridge University Press.
Talbot, M. M. (1998). Language and gender: An introduction. Polity Press.
Toska, B. (2012). Epistemic hedges and booster as stance marker in legal argumentative discourse. Topics in Linguistics, 10, 57-62
Upon acceptance of an article, Authors will be asked to transfer copyright. This transfer will ensure the widest possible dissemination of information. A notification will be sent to the corresponding Author confirming receipt of the manuscript. If excerpts from other copyrighted works are included, the Author(s) must obtain written permission from the copyright owners and credit the source(s) in the article.
